Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/205

 Ḥawwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity taking part with the supreme god in the production of man. See Cheyne, TBI, 104, who thinks it "psychologically probable that Eve congratulated herself on having 'created' a man."—That is not elsewhere used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any interpretation (cf. in Jb. 3$3$); though the thought readily occurs that the etymology would be more appropriate to the name (4$26$) than to.

2. And again she bare, etc.] The omission of the verb is not to be pressed as implying that the brothers were twins, although that may very well be the meaning. The OT contains no certain trace of the widespread superstitions regarding twin-births.—The sons betake themselves to the two fundamental pursuits of settled life: the elder to agriculture, the younger to the rearing of small cattle (sheep and goats). The previous story of the Fall, in which Adam, as representing the race, is condemned to husbandry, seems to be ignored (Gu.).

The absence of an etymology of is remarkable (but cf. v.$17$), and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition that the name was only coined afterwards in token of his brief, fleeting existence (Di.). The word (= 'breath') might suggest that to a Heb. reader, but the original sense is unknown. Gu. regards it as the proper name of an extinct tribe or people; Ew. We. al. take it to be a variant of , the father of nomadic shepherds (4$20$); and Cheyne has ingeniously combined both names with a group of Semitic words denoting domestic animals and those who take charge of them (e.g. Syr. = 'herd'; Ar. 'abbāl = 'camel-herd,' etc.): the meaning would then be 'herdsman' (EB, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in TBI, in the interests of Yeraḥme'el.

3. An offering], lit. a present or tribute (32$14ff.$ 33$10$ 43$11ff.$, 1 Sa. 10$27$ etc.): see below. The use of this word

even there, is established by Dt. 32$6$, Pr. 8$22$, Ps. 139$13$, Gn. 14$19. 22$.—] Of the Vns. T$O$ alone can be thought to have read ; one anonymous Gr. tr. (see Field) took the word as ''not. acc.'' ; the rest vary greatly in rendering (as was to be expected from the difficulty of the phrase), but there is no reason to suppose they had a different text: G, Σ. , V per Deum, S. Conjectures: Marti (Lit. Centralbl., 1897, xx. 641) and Zeydner (ZATW, xviii. 120): = 'the man of the Jahwe sign' (v.$15$); Gu. = 'man whom I desire.'

3. ] After some time, which may be longer (1 Sa. 29$3$) or shorter (24$55$). To take in the definite sense of 'year' (1 Sa. 1$21$ 2$19$